AFBM Journal volume 3 number 2
© Copyright AFBMNetwork
An exploration of language for biodiversity and
regeneration in Australian agriculture
1
Pennie Scott and G Watson
Ph D candidate, The University of Sydney, Orange NSW 2800 Australia
2
Charles Sturt University, Orange, NSW 2800 Australia
[email protected]
Contents
Introduction
Attributed male-gender characteristics
Attributed feminine-gender characteristics
Identity
Conclusions
References
Abstract. The language of words is the most commonly used tool in person to person
communication and this in turn, profoundly reflects and creates an individual’s belief systems and
behaviours. In the arena of sustainable production systems for food and fibre and the
‘management’ of natural resources, there is a plethora of information provided by organisations
dedicated to researching and communicating new land use methods for farmers to implement.
However to date, the uptake of new methods has been frustratingly low resulting in the on-going
degradation of Australia’s fragile landscapes while exploitative farming practices continue. A key
issue is whether the language of current policies is appropriate to influence the belief systems of
decision makers in exploitative agriculture in order to achieve a shift towards more sustainable and
regenerative outcomes. Research is currently in the early stages to distinguish the different
‘languages’ present in Australian culture, especially in agri-culture. Initial evaluation reveals that
the hegemonic language is economic rationalism (hereon known as ‘eco-rat’) emanating from neoliberal economic policies. ‘Eco-rat’ is characterised by espoused masculinity, viz. competitiveness,
control, reductionism, power and domination and is counter-productive to sustainable production
practices. Conversely, the language of sustainability and regeneration is feminine - nurturing,
holistic, supportive and nature-cyclical. An integral component of this research is to identify
specific paradigms in Australia that characterise exploitative (industrialised) farmers and
paradigms that characterise regenerative / conservation landholders. A key characteristic of such
paradigms is the level and extent of each person’s vocabulary, building on Wittgenstein’s notion
that “the limits of my language are the limits of my mind’. Are there differences between the
vocabularies of landholders engaged in regenerative farming compared to those who use more
industrialised methods of production? For example when contemporary advertisements for high
input agriculture are analysed, farming is commonly portrayed as a competitive ‘battle’. In
polemic essay style, this paper explores and characterises the underlying belief systems and
vocabularies that perpetuate the paradigms of ‘stubble-burners’ in broadacre cropping enterprises,
and compares these to those of regenerative farmers – with the implication that these distinct
paradigms can influence the development of very different land use practices.
Keywords: agricultural belief systems, emotional learning, gender attributes, agricultural
expectations, holistic, eco-literacy, economic rationalism, agro-ecological paradigms.
Introduction
In polemic style, this paper creates a
background to research currently being
undertaken into the power of language in
shaping and expressing exploitative versus
regenerative
paradigms
within
Australian
agriculture.
Language is our primary communication tool
and we use it without conscious effort.
Speaking is a survival skill which we continue to
practice frequently so we tend to take the
process of thinking and articulating for granted.
Language is a part of our organism and no less
complicated than it (Wittgenstein 1958). The
actual words we use are paramount in
establishing and endorsing our belief systems
which in turn underpin our actions and
behaviours.
When you take a slow-motion view of walking
there are four distinct processes, or stages, in
the action of one footfall. The first stages sees
the heel touching the ground, then the lateral or
outside edge, followed by a slight inward rocking
so the ball of the foot makes contact and finally,
the toes touch down and launch the foot forward
into the next step. Until you see all this in slow
motion, it is difficult to appreciate the number of
minute movements and stages that constitute
the final outcome – locomotion.
Speaking, verbalising, ‘gas-bagging’, bragging,
gossiping,
explaining,
describing,
talking,
arguing and discussing, all occur very easily for
us and almost effortlessly as we are so practiced
in applying them.
To understand how this happens however,
requires the intrusion of a slow-motion camera
into our brains.
http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/sciagr/rman/afbmnetwork/afbmjournal/index.htm
page 86
AFBM Journal volume 3 number 2
To express a thought, an idea, a concept, an
opinion, a fact, our brain rapidly goes through a
series of processes and, depending on the
familiarity of the subject matter, this happens
with seemingly little effort. Actually describing
this sequence nevertheless is quite challenging,
since the use, say, of formal medical jargon
detracts from the insights that might be
revealed. So, imagine a scenario instead,
someone organising three children for breakfast
on a school morning:
“Do you know where my homework diary is?”
“On the dining-room table.”
“OK.”
“Has anyone seen my lunchbox?”
“It’s in the kitchen with your lunch in it.”
“Thanks Dad.’
“How can I use the word ‘extirpated’ in a
sentence?”
Silence.
Whereas all the other words used in this
scenario were familiar and often used, what
does that word, extirpated mean? If I haven
not heard of it before, how can I possibly use it
or wrap thoughts and ideas around it?
The German philosopher, Wittgenstein (1958),
asserted that ‘the limits of my language are the
limits to my mind’. The example above
illustrates this quite clearly. Yet vocabulary is
but one element of a broader collection of
factors that influence the way a person thinks
and acts, particularly in a setting where a
community of practitioners operates. In the
1960’s, Thomas Kuhn developed the notion of a
“paradigm” to characterise his relativist view of
how communities of scientists operate (Kuhn
1962). A paradigm represented the way any
particular community of scientists functioned to
“see” their practice of science and it embraced:
•
a shared vocabulary;
•
specific gender experiences;
•
shared examples of good and bad practice
in defining and solving problems;
•
shared devices for teaching the paradigm;
and
•
shared values which define the bounds of
legitimate activity.
Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm has since been
widely extended to depict non scientific
communities of practitioners who hold a
particular mindset and values that guide and
characterise their shared activity. It is proposed
that the paradigm framework can be adapted
within this research to distinguish the
approaches of exploitative versus regenerative
© Copyright AFBMNetwork
farmers and that characterising the distinct belief
systems of these communities can lead to new
communication approaches for achieving a shift
towards more sustainable and regenerative
outcomes.
Scientists are often guided by tacit knowledge—
knowledge acquired through practice which
cannot be articulated explicitly (Polanyi 1958).
Research by the author/s has commenced with
the aim of exploring a similar scenario with
regenerative and industrialised farmers in the
Australian context. There appears to be a distinct
shift from one paradigm to another since many
of the regenerative farmers once fell into the
category of being heavily reliant on synthetic
inputs. It is these shifts which are also being
explored together with the details of how, when,
why and what occurred that predicated those
shifts. The use of narrative and conversation
methodologies to collect ‘stories in their own
words’ from both groups of participants will
provide an unstructured situation for the
collection of vocabularies. The content of these
will then be analysed to compare lexicons of
‘eco-rat’ and ecological-literacy and ascertain the
influence of language on subsequent attitudes
and actions.
The acquisition of a ‘new’ literacy, especially an
eco-literacy (Pretty 2003; Capra 1999) was
fundamental in people being able to imagine
another ‘way of doing things’, of seeing the
world through different sets of eyes; to
appreciating there was more than one ‘right’ way
of achieving outcomes.
‘Unfamiliarity is much more of an experience
than familiarity’ Wittgenstein (1958)
Attributed male-gender characteristics
To discuss the status quo of a situation, it is
necessary
to
know
the
stages
of
its
development, implementation and maintenance
and in this regard, exploitative, industrialised
farming has a distinct background. Cartesian
mechanistic theories, reductionist science, the
laws of thermodynamics and then economic
ideologies based on these theories, have
produced a shrewd structure of technologydriven farm production that promotes reliance on
continual applications of purchased inputs
(Jackson 1991; Diamond 2005) These inputs,
coupled with the strategy of producing ‘more of
the same’ known as commodification is resulting
in:
•
increased
capital;
demands
•
the loss of farming family enterprises;
•
desertification;
•
soil acidity;
•
salinity;
http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/sciagr/rman/afbmnetwork/afbmjournal/index.htm
on
dwindling
soil
page 87
AFBM Journal volume 3 number 2
© Copyright AFBMNetwork
•
overgrazing;
•
management
•
man-made droughts
•
labour
•
loss of habitats and biodiversity; and
•
competitiveness
•
lower equity and incomes for those
remaining and attempting to do more of
the same and expecting a different result.
•
efficiencies
•
ownership
•
commodities
•
raw materials
What do the above have to do with language
and our actions?
The short answer is –
‘everything’.
•
agribusiness
•
eradicate
To use an example and strategy from
advertising, a repeated message is far more
likely to be remembered than one heard or
seen only once (Kotler, 2006). Repetition works
– (just think of the constant request from
children for something they may have seen on
television or that one of their classmates now
has). This is known as ‘pester power’ in
marketing practice (B & T 2002, 2005) and now
commands its own range of tactics in
advertisements and promotions to eventually
reduce parents to the point where they
succumb to the child’s never-ending demands
for something the child simply ‘can’t live
without’.
The repeated request is finally
responded to by the parents and a purchase
result is forthcoming.
•
terminate
•
dominate
•
units of utility
•
aggressive marketing
•
inventory reduction
•
economies of scale
•
control
•
‘‘Bullet proof’ (advertisement for ATV)
•
‘Muscle in now’ (Mazda Bravo
advertisement)
•
‘Middle Weight Champ’ (tractor
advertisement)
•
‘Built Tough’ (Pacific Seeds canola
advertisement)
(Diamond 2005; Scott
2005)
When analysing the application of eco-rat
language of agri-culture today, the prolonged
use of ‘pester power’ is occurring with repeated
messages from agri-chemical companies,
commodity agencies, farmer associations, some
Research and Development corporations, and
some politicians and economists about the need
for ‘higher productivity and efficiencies’ as the
solution to competition and declining terms of
trade (Single Vision 2004; Main 2005)). Driving
this continuous demand is the hegemonic
ideology of neoliberal economics through which
the free-market economy is the ‘shining jewel’
(Davies 2004) and globalisation the dehumanising outcome.
But what is this ‘language’ and what are its
characteristics? The following words and terms
are used constantly in agribusiness, a slave of
the free-market economy:
•
waste
•
bottom line
•
financial performance
•
risk management
•
corporatisation
•
power
•
cost cutting
•
yield
page 88
As Starhawk (2004) comments, ‘when we use
language that fits into the established framework
of the culture, when we try to make our ideas
respectable, we limit what we can say and think’
and perpetual use of this lexicon reinforces the
established mindsets. Similarly, ‘certain fixed
standards of our expression prevent us from
seeing facts with unbiased eyes which force us to
think that the facts must conform to certain
pictures
embedded
in
our
language’.
(Wittgenstein, 1958)
These listed words are also typical of masculine
gender-characteristics with a win-lose focus.
There are clear losers in this ‘battle’ of farmers
making an income ‘against’ the odds and
elements; the losers are:
•
the once-endemic and flourishing species of
flora and fauna;
•
the rural communities
populations;
•
the children of farming families who feel
unable to pursue that option;
•
rural and regionally based enterprises and
their
synergistic
relationships
with
landholders.
http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/sciagr/rman/afbmnetwork/afbmjournal/index.htm
with
dwindling
AFBM Journal volume 3 number 2
© Copyright AFBMNetwork
The winners on the other hand are the multinational
agribusiness
corporations
who
tirelessly pursue their profits via the eco-rat
‘mantra’ outlined above.
•
Curious
•
Team players
•
Compassionate
With the continuing destruction of eco-systems
from industrialised farming practices, even the
medium-term future appears bleak. The goal
of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA
2005) was to establish the scientific basis for
actions needed to enhance the conservation
and sustainable use of ecosystems and their
contributions to meeting human needs.
Because the basis of all ecosystems is a
dynamic complex of plants, animals, and
microorganisms,
biological
diversity
(or
biodiversity, for short) has been a key
component of the MEA. The MEA recognizes
that
interactions
exist
between
people,
biodiversity, and ecosystems. That is, changing
human conditions and actions drive, both
directly and indirectly, changes in biodiversity,
changes in ecosystems, and ultimately changes
in the services ecosystems provide. Thus
biodiversity
and
human
well-being
are
inextricably linked.
•
Synergy
•
Emotional
•
Symbiotic
•
Sympathetic
•
Empathy
•
Respect
•
Trust
•
Facilitation
•
Instinct
•
Fertility
•
Mystery
•
Ambiguity
•
Pluralism
•
Freedom
‘Our ordinary language, which of all possible
notations is the one which pervades all our life,
and holds our minds rigidly in one position…..’
Wittgenstein, 1958
•
Abundance
•
Justice
•
Diversity
Attributed feminine-gender characteristics
•
Resilience
To initiate a change from technology-based
industrialised production to regenerativefocussed systems, a logical component to alter
first is the language used in agri-culture. Such
an alteration provides a means for reshaping
the exploitative paradigm framework (Diamond
2005) and offering practitioners an alternative
standpoint. A worthwhile place to begin is to
adopt and implement the following culturally
accepted
views
of
feminine
gendercharacteristics (Tarnas 1995; Starhawk 2004),
namely –
•
Complexity
Having an attitude of ‘making a living with the
land’ as opposed to ’making a living from the
land’ (Roe & Hoogland, 1999) implies quite
different practices simply from the alteration of
one word.
The nature of the relationship
between the human and the land takes on a
significantly different approach here and extends
to one of co-operation and co-existence
(feminine) rather than one of coercion and
intimidation (masculine).
•
Nurturing
•
Caring
•
Patient
•
Passive
The account of Colin Seis (Scott 2005) and the
transformation from high-input production to
creating an innovative pasture cropping system
on his property “Winona’, indicates the
differences in his language from the late 1970s
to the present:
•
Mediator
•
•
Gentle
•
Consistent
The measurement of tonnes of fertiliser per
hectare has been replaced by measuring
tonnes of organic matter;
•
Observers
•
The stocking rate now includes
microbes and earthworms;
•
Supportive
•
•
Nature-cyclical
•
Menders
Fungi are no longer pests to be sprayed into
extinction; mycorrhizal fungi are excitedly
welcomed as an indicator of soil health and
function;
•
Co-operative
http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/sciagr/rman/afbmnetwork/afbmjournal/index.htm
sheep,
page 89
AFBM Journal volume 3 number 2
•
The scope of the soil food-web is enhanced
with the re-establishment of birds, reptiles
and plants that once thrived in this area but
had been forced into dormancy and relocation
by
previous
inhospitable
treatments of the soils and vegetation;
•
The accumulation of soil carbon (new term)
is increasing exponentially now that
perennial grasses can truly express
themselves – and be perennial!
•
The wealth of life in the soil is treated with
awe and respect as previously unknown
systems are steadily increasing the
available nitrogen;
•
Plant health rather than plant yield is the
primary focus since one follows the
other…….. when given the chance.
Identity
In Australia, there are quite distinct groups of
primary producers even within the same
industries. When meeting people for the first
time who generate their incomes from / with
the land, their definition of themselves is
frequently based on their occupation.
“I’m a wool grower”
“I’m a wheat grower”
“I raise beef cattle”.
“I have a cropping enterprise.”
“I’m a farmer’s wife.”
When one’s identity is based on a familiar
‘group’, there are subtle and subliminal
pressures to dress in a certain way, and to
behave, speak and think in a particular manner
in order to be recognisable and accepted within
that grouping.
To alter one’s identity, especially within a peer
group, can be very difficult.
To become a
‘harvester of sunlight and water in order to
grow grass’ (Savory, 1999) instead of being a
wool grower, suggests an almost 180 degree
shift of focus. The language has altered with
the identity transfer, with the new focus of
energies and with the altered management
practices. However, the primary goal is still to
raise sheep to grow wool but with a subtle
change; the focus is now on creating and
facilitating the most optimum conditions for
that to happen by ensuring the stocking rate
does not exceed the carrying capacity and
being willing to sell off stock if the property is
unable to produce enough fodder to keep the
stock in a Score 3 condition.
For broadacre croppers, size of machinery
matters (economies of scale) and there are
self-confessed ‘recreational tillers’ who simply
love machinery and the ability to transform, in
page 90
© Copyright AFBMNetwork
a very serious manner, the landscapes. How can
one be a cropper without machinery?
That
doesn’t fit the prescribed identity and unless
there is an on-going ‘battle’ with broad-acre
weeds, or mites, or ‘take-all’, or wheat mosaic
virus…….. there is nothing to actually do! To
fulfil one’s own (and ascribed) identity, there are
various accoutrements one needs to fulfil that
image and expectation.
Breaking out of this
mould to become a ‘soil carbon sequester’ by
growing perennial pastures and direct drilling
cereals into them, requires a totally different
identity together with a vocabulary to achieve
that shift.
Conclusions
‘When we live in our memories, we recreate
history. When we live in our imaginations, we
create the future’. Scott, 2000
Fear is probably the most profound barrier to
change – a common sentiment is ‘I don’t mind
change; I just don’t like being changed’. Fear will
keep us rooted to one spot, afraid to try
something different, remaining risk averse and
erecting barriers to anything with which we are
unfamiliar. If change is externally imposed, we
are certainly more resistant. However, if we
initiate the change, we are in control of the
process.
If we spoke a different language, we would
perceive
a
somewhat
different
world
(Wittgenstein 1958).
As mentioned earlier,
incorporating new and other elements and words
into our lexicon is an important starting point.
Below are some examples:
We need ways to encourage regenerative
practices, to smile with passion and emotion on
our exquisite landscapes, speaking words of
gratitude for the abundance we are blessed with;
replacing fear with awe and respect; seeing and
feeling the world from the perspectives of wasps,
bees and trees; imagining what it is like
surveying the realm from an eagle’s and
cockatoo’s eyes; creating and nurturing habitats
for many species and treasuring biodiversity;
Celebrating the rain with a feast from wholesome
and nutritious food grown in your own ecological
garden…. intuitively knowing about health – your
own, your family’s, your animals, your soils and
your ecosystems at all levels;
Developing symbiotic and respectful relationships
with
all
living
and
non-living
entities;
experiencing the manifestations of spiritual
awakenings that exhilarate and excite; feeling
sincere fulfilment and profound satisfaction in
co-existing with and regenerating biodiversity,
social capabilities, and communities, and trusting
and respecting your own wonderful and valuable
self.
http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/sciagr/rman/afbmnetwork/afbmjournal/index.htm
AFBM Journal volume 3 number 2
Altering and adding language changes attitudes
and belief systems and eventually, actions and
behaviours. Respecting and trusting Nature’s
wisdom and systems requires letting go of old
beliefs that have enforced offensive action,
movement, control and power. Studying the
language of Nature can be a dangerous
undertaking. To become literate in Nature’s
idiom, we must challenge our ordinary
perceptions and change our consciousness. We
must, to some extent, withdraw from many of
the underlying assumptions and preoccupations
of our culture. (Starhawk 2004) We must seek
a notation which stresses a difference more
strongly and is made more obvious than
ordinary language to loosen our mental cramp.
(Wittgenstein, 1958)
The research that has commenced will move
forward with these ideas and seek to
characterise the distinct paradigms that appear
to exist as frames for exploitative versus
regenerative farming in Australia.
© Copyright AFBMNetwork
Making, Island Press, Washington, Chapters 2 and
31.
Scott P 2005, ‘Making decisions in agriculture: the
conflict
between
extension
and
adoption’,
Extension Farming Systems Journal, 1(1): 85-88.
Scott, P 2005, ‘Pasture Cropping’, Australian Organic
Journal (64): 36-37.
Starhawk J 2004, The Earth Path: grounding your spirit
in the rhythms of Nature, Harper, San Francisco,
pp 8-83.
Tarnas R 1995, The Masculine Mind, in Only Connect:
Soil, Soul and Society, The Best of Resurgence
Magazine 1990 – 1999, Green Books, Devon, UK,
pp 103-107.
GRDC 2005, Towards a Single Vision for the Australian
Grains Industry 2005 – 202, Grains Research &
Development Corporation and Grains Council of
Australia, pp 41, 53.
Wittgenstein L 1958, The Blue and Brown Books, Basil
Blackwell, Oxford, pp 31, 43, 59, 127.
We are often reminded “Don’t just stand there,
do something!’ Are we brave enough to do the
opposite and stop thwarting Nature’s efforts?
Can we not do something and just stand there
instead?.
References
B&T Magazine 2002, ‘Marketers Plug into Pester
Power to Target Parents’, B & T Magazine,
Sydney, p 13.
Capra F 1999, The Web of Life, Doubleday Books,
New York.
Davies G 2004, Economia: new economic systems to
empower people and support the living world,
ABC Books, Sydney pp 9-76.
Diamond J 2005, Collapse: How Societies Choose to
Fail or Survive; Allen Lane (an imprint of Penguin
Books) Melbourne, Chapter 13.
Jackson W 1991, Tragedy of Agriculture, in Only
Connect: Soil, Soul, Society, The Best of
Resurgence Magazine 1990 – 1999, Green
Books, Devon, UK, .pp 52-56.
Kotler P 2006, Principles of Marketing 3, Pearson,
Sydney, pp 443-444.
Kuhn T 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 25.
Main G 2005, Heartland; the regeneration of rural
place, UNSW Press, pp 67-85.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Ecosystems
and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis,
World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Polanyi M 1958. Personal Knowledge, Harper & Row,
New York.
Pretty J 2003, Agri-culture,Leeds University Press,
Chapter 7.
Roe P and Hoogland F 1999, Black and White, a Trail
to Understanding, in Sinatra J and Murphy P,
Listen to the Land, Listen to the People
University Press, Melbourne, p 22.
Ryan R 2005, Toyota Taps into Pester Power, B & T
Magazine, Sydney.
Savory
A
and
J
Butterfield
1999,
Holistic
Management: a New Framework for Decision
http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/sciagr/rman/afbmnetwork/afbmjournal/index.htm
page 91